rep_inspect

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does state "Read-only," which is the single most important safety fact for a tool pointed at a local file. It says nothing about behavior on a missing, malformed, or non-v1 record, nor whether verification is actually performed or verdicts are merely reported as stored.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence with the object of the operation and its payload front-loaded, followed by the read-only flag. No filler, no redundancy with the schema beyond what is needed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, non-destructive inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what it acts on and roughly what comes back. The gaps are edge-case behavior (invalid or missing record) and how it relates to rep_verify, which keeps it short of a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required path parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains what to pass. The description adds no format, extension, or path-resolution detail beyond that, making baseline 3 appropriate rather than higher.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Summarize a REP v1 record") and enumerates the returned content: ids, counts, claim verdicts, manifest summary. That is far clearer than the bare name, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like rep_verify or rep_list, which likely also operate on REP records.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion rule. An agent must infer that this is the inspection/overview call while rep_verify performs verification, which is only weakly implied by the word "Summarize" and the presence of "claim verdicts" in the output list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.